SBT Trading Solutions = SCAM

eskbanker

Malthusian wrote: »

In a section 75 claim any misrepresentation by the supplier should give rise to a claim against the card issuer.

Someone who invested in a previous incarnation of this scam said their card issuer incorrectly rejected their claim as they characterised it as investment / gambling losses rather than software sold under a misrepresentation. Another victim said their section 75 claim was successful.

People will get different results depending on well they state their case, and whether the person at the card issuer understands it. I.e. if the victim can make the card issuer understand that their claim is about software sold under misrepresentation and not investment / gambling losses.

If the card issuer fails to provide redress they can make a formal complaint, and if the card issuer still fails to provide redress they can go to the Financial Ombudsman.

Debit card chargeback is less clear-cut as it's based on the card issuer's own policies rather than UK consumer law.

The paragraph of mine that you quoted was drawing a distinction between fake trading platforms and dodgy software, but I don't disagree with the principle of what you're saying.

However, I was suggesting that proving misrepresentation is unlikely to be straightforward, based on the representations actually made on the SBT website, which, as highlighted above, seem sufficiently vague to me to jeopardise a claim for clear misrepresentation.

If they make promises or guarantees about gains to be made when using their software then that would be different but for the benefit of readers/victims, can anyone help construct a misrepresentation case by highlighting published promises made by SBT that are demonstrably false?

jod_1969

Yes the software does exist and makes recommendations on data downloaded into it from the ASX. Shares are then purchased via a third party broker so they make no 'extra money' there. Any residual trading funds can be transferred back out. Seems like they are only after the initial purchase price. All money back guarantees are worthless, 1800 phone numbers don't work, ACN number is de-registered, phone calls and emails not returned, UK phone number on website out of service and yet they still answer their Melbourne office phone.

AnotherJoe

Then I'd say you are screwed Jod. At least it was only £5k and not tens to hundreds of £k in say LC&F and maybe it's helped you longer term in not falling for bigger scams.

Malthusian

eskbanker wrote: »

However, I was suggesting that proving misrepresentation is unlikely to be straightforward, based on the representations actually made on the SBT website, which, as highlighted above, seem sufficiently vague to me to jeopardise a claim for clear misrepresentation.

Which is why you base your claim on the representations made by the salesman who flogged the software to you over the phone. Not the irrelevant pseudo-compliance on the website.

There are plenty of outright misrepresentations on the website, such as the various testimonials from people who don't exist, and the claim that the company has been in business since 2003 when "SBT" did not exist before 2019. Then you have the various fake forums which SBT set up to pretend that people were independently recommending the software - another misrepresentation by SBT.

AnotherJoe wrote: »

At least it was only £5k and not tens to hundreds of £k in say LC&F and maybe it's helped you longer term in not falling for bigger scams.

Maybe. More frequently scam victims proceed directly to a bigger scam in an attempt to recover their losses. Like breaking out of drug addiction, it requires a quantum leap in mindset, also known as a Road to Damascus moment. It's not as simple as "Oh dear, that went wrong, I won't do it again".

eskbanker

Malthusian wrote: »

Which is why you base your claim on the representations made by the salesman who flogged the software to you over the phone. Not the irrelevant pseudo-compliance on the website.

There are plenty of outright misrepresentations on the website, such as the various testimonials from people who don't exist, and the claim that the company has been in business since 2003 when "SBT" did not exist before 2019. Then you have the various fake forums which SBT set up to pretend that people were independently recommending the software - another misrepresentation by SBT.

My understanding is that the threshold for demonstrating actionable misrepresentation in a legal sense is somewhat higher than querying dubious claims about essentially peripheral matters, so I'd be amazed if a card company was prepared to refund sizable four-figure sums based on that sort of stuff plus allegations about what was said verbally.

However, happy to be proved wrong and you did find someone who claimed success, albeit without giving any detail....

Malthusian

If blatant lies and setting up fake forums is "peripheral" then I struggle to see what is essential. That SBT is a scam is not disputable. The only defence a card issuer has against a section 75 claim is that the scam falls under "investment / gambling losses", which it doesn't because users hand over their money to buy software.

Everything SBT says about their software is a misrepresentation. Its lies about being in business since 2003 and its faked independent recommendations simply reinforce that its more fundamental claims about how people can turn £4,750 into £30,000 (or whatever) using their software are also misrepresentations.

Relieved scam victims are unlikely to post a certified bank statement proving that they got their money back from their card issuer, so your theory that nobody can make a successful section 75 claim over SBT and anyone who says that they did could be lying is essentially unfalsifiable.

The poster in question did not post any contact details or invite PMs saying "Contact me so I can [STRIKE]scam you again[/STRIKE] help you get your money back", so either they're telling the truth, or it was an elaborate ruse (involving multiple visits to the forum three months apart) to give investors false hope.

I am not in the least bit surprised if someone makes a section 75 claim and fails, because this is not a straightforward distinction and demonstrating it requires some clear thinking, which anyone who invests in RVS / HSL / SBT / ETC isn't good at. But my point is that a successful claim is possible and the poster who said they made a successful claim, who is highly unlikely to be lying, backs this up.

eskbanker

Malthusian wrote: »

If blatant lies and setting up fake forums is "peripheral" then I struggle to see what is essential. That SBT is a scam is not disputable. The only defence a card issuer has against a section 75 claim is that the scam falls under "investment / gambling losses", which it doesn't because users hand over their money to buy software.

Everything SBT says about their software is a misrepresentation. Its lies about being in business since 2003 and its faked independent recommendations simply reinforce that its more fundamental claims about how people can turn £4,750 into £30,000 (or whatever) using their software are also misrepresentations.

To a certain extent I'm playing devil's advocate here and agree that this outfit are a scam, but am just emphasising the difference between knowing they're a scam and being able to demonstrate actionable and material misrepresentation to the standard required to secure a refund from a reluctant card company.

Malthusian wrote: »

Relieved scam victims are unlikely to post a certified bank statement proving that they got their money back from their card issuer, so your theory that nobody can make a successful section 75 claim over SBT and anyone who says that they did could be lying is essentially unfalsifiable.

The poster in question did not post any contact details or invite PMs saying "Contact me so I can [STRIKE]scam you again[/STRIKE] help you get your money back", so either they're telling the truth, or it was an elaborate ruse (involving multiple visits to the forum three months apart) to give investors false hope.

I'm not sure if you're being serious here but I'm not looking for evidential proof that there was a refund (which as you rightly say is hardly likely to be supplied), but just some info about the line of argument used and what supporting evidence was cited in the claim. I'm not theorising that nobody can make a successful claim but am just questioning exactly how they'd construct it - in the thread you linked, there was reference to the software ceasing to function, which would have made a claim more straightforward than trying to rely on misrepresentation.

Malthusian wrote: »

I am not in the least bit surprised if someone makes a section 75 claim and fails, because this is not a straightforward distinction and demonstrating it requires some clear thinking, which anyone who invests in RVS / HSL / SBT / ETC isn't good at. But my point is that a successful claim is possible and the poster who said they made a successful claim, who is highly unlikely to be lying, backs this up.

I do entirely agree with your point about countering categorisation as investment/gambling losses and focusing instead on misrepresentation, but am just challenging whether there really is enough to make the latter stick.

Alc124

Morning.

I am a little ashamed to admit that I was conned into investing in the HSL Smart Market System over 2years ago. So I feel your pain.

A had paid £500 on CC and £4499 by bank transfer. Then a further £699 by bank transfer for data.

I argued that I was due a section 75 refund as I had bought a product which was defective and didn’t produce as advertised. After 8 months of sending documentation back and forth I received a refund of over £6k. The initial cost plus interest.

Best of luck to you all but keep at it.

eskbanker

Alc124 wrote: »

I argued that I was due a section 75 refund as I had bought a product which was defective and didn’t produce as advertised. After 8 months of sending documentation back and forth I received a refund of over £6k. The initial cost plus interest.

Well done, sounds like a good result and it must be a relief to put it all behind you.

In the context of the above discussion, are you able to share more specifics about exactly which of their advertised statements you were able to cite as invalid?